I've taught things to people in schools of sorts. I'm not a teacher though, nor have I ever officially been one. My concern is with philosophy of education.

Honestly, the points you're making are extremely limited in that they're the product of experience with people who have been treated poorly throughout their educations. The theory and philosophy behind education, if properly enacted, would produce students completely unrecognizable to you. Systematic changes would nullify most of you (somewhat justifiable) conceptions of what students are and are not capable of.

bartink:Although atheists believe that there isn't a God. At least in common usage. I simply don't know.

I lack a belief in a deity; nothing active. This is mostly my point:

Consider, do you believe unicorns exist? If not, do you then believe unicorns do not exist? You'd probably say yes, because there are no implications.

Consider now, does an infant believe god exists? If not, do you then believe god does not exist? This has more implications in our world, and you'd hesitate strongly to say the child has an active disbelief. The child is, essentially, an atheist.

I get really sick of hearing what those that have never taught think is the solution to teaching kids. I've been there. I've saved kids (their words). I've taught kids that couldn't read a syllable at age 12 to read. I'm all about challenging kids. But I'm about teaching them what they are ready to learn and not arrogantly assuming that because I understood something in high school and felt it was useful for me personally that all children should get that instruction. I've seen what happens to a group of kids that get what some bright-eyed, well meaning teacher thought they needed when they didn't have the basics. I've actually taught. You haven't.

If you think its so simple with regular kids, go do it. But spare me your lectures. Its not your field. I don't care what some cherry-picked research here or there says. I've actually been in the trenches and I was very good at what I did.

zeph`:Honestly, the points you're making are extremely limited in that they're the product of experience with people who have been treated poorly throughout their educations. The theory and philosophy behind education, if properly enacted, would produce students completely unrecognizable to you. Systematic changes would nullify most of you (somewhat justifiable) conceptions of what students are and are not capable of.

I taught them the way they came to me. I didn't dwell in some fantasy of what might or could be if I was God and could design some system. I didn't have that luxury. I had homework to grade and a class of kids looking at me expecting to teach them something.

I didn't deal in the philosophical. I dealt with the actual child sitting in a chair in front of me.

Do these creationism people ever win? I can see why people get pissed off about creationism taught as science, but this "war on science" hysteria is way out of proportion to the non-threat these creationism people represent.

Sometimes I wonder if the two sides are competing for martyrdom status. NO YOU'RE TRYING TO DESTROY ME!! NO YOU!!!

That's fine, and you shouldn't. You're obviously both ill-equipped and in a poor position to do so. You teach and leave the thinking about the ways in which education can be improved up to the academics.

I'm what was right about the system. Ask the children that I taught. They will tell you. I took kids that couldn't read at all and were ignored by that system you despise and humiliated and treated like shiat and taught them what they thought they were too dumb to do: read. Go ask those kids about me.

Maybe I can ask the kids you've taught to read. Oh wait, you haven't. Spare me your armchair philosophizing. You don't know me and you have never taught. Everything you are talking about is theoretical.

You post a clip on youtube of a man who says things I mostly agree with. But before you go worship him, remember what kind of kids that man taught. He taught at a prep school and some kids in Cape frkking Cod. Gimme a break.

Don't assume that everyone comes out of the womb tabla rosa ready to become a genius. Don't assume that there is some system that can be magically created that can turn a room temp IQ into a philosopher.

You are assuming that every kid can do these things because you can. I got news for you. You are exceptional. You are in a thread with some exceptional minds. Hell, I've got a genius IQ and I'd bet money you are smarter than me. But you don't know what you are talking about here. I do. I've been there.

Half of everyone is too stupid to be considered average. Many are born that way. All of them that get criticized too much when they are little and don't get read to are basically screwed. I got research on that. Want it?

paygun:Sometimes I wonder if the two sides are competing for martyrdom status.

These creationist fascists home-school their own kids and sit in disproportionate numbers on the boards of public schools and try to "stupidify" the rest of the population.They are a real threat to science education. Texas/Dallas is a great example of this. They must be removed.

Bah, I was trying to do zeph's thing in predicate logic, but it's been too long since I've played with it.

I ran into trouble trying to define a first cause.

If "a" has a cause, that means there exists something which caused a. So, what,Ax [HasCause(x) -> Ey Caused(y,x)]?Unless I'm on crack, that reads "for all x, if x has a cause, there exists a y which caused x".And therefore,AyAx [Caused(y,x) -> IsCause(y)]For all x and y, if y caused x, y is a cause.

But then a first cause obviouslyEy [IsCause(y) & ~HasCause(y)]There exists a y such that y is a cause and y does not have a cause.

Here the problem becomes pretty obvious. Earlier, it was stated that for all things, if it exists, it either was caused or was not, and nothing was not caused. So there is no y such that it both is a cause and does not have a cause, the argument is invalid.

But because I can't remember all the rules to do a formal derivation (and it's much longer than the ones I did a year ago), and strangely the internet has very little in the way of good explanations.

Anyone who does this stuff for a living and not just for fun want to fix me?

Pharque-it:These creationist fascists home-school their own kids and sit in disproportionate numbers on the boards of public schools and try to "stupidify" the rest of the population.They are a real threat to science education. Texas/Dallas is a great example of this. They must be removed.

bartink:I've actually been in the trenches and I was very good at what I did.

Your premise seems to be that education should be kept to an average standard in order to not dissuade children with "poor genetics" from learning. While I agree basic education should not be discouraging, there is a significant, symptomatic failure with the basic ways children are taught. Would you not agree? This, I believe, is zeph`'s main point.

Vangor:Your premise seems to be that education should be kept to an average standard in order to not dissuade children with "poor genetics" from learning. While I agree basic education should not be discouraging, there is a significant, symptomatic failure with the basic ways children are taught. Would you not agree? This, I believe, is zeph`'s main point.

No, my point is that people are wired differently. Some aren't that bright, no matter what their early upbringing. Some just aren't going to get something like college level logic. I'm for having special classes to teach those kids what he suggests. But he wants to teach Ayers Verificationism and thinks given an hour he can take a typical class and teach it to them. And he thinks that should be done to every student.

Nonsense.

We got lots of problems in education. Teaching the controversy isn't one of them. And neither is a lack of Ayers Verificationism.

You are talking to someone that pushed kids harder than those kids thought was possible. But if you don't recognize that there are some genetic differences between bright people like you, me, and him and most children you are simply being narcissistic.

Board members deadlocked 7-7 on a motion to restore a longtime curriculum rule that "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories - notably Charles Darwin's theory of evolution - be covered in science classes and textbooks for those subjects...

"I don't see how we can say there is no disagreement about evolution. There is disagreement," said Mercer, taking issue with science teachers and academics who told the board that the theory of evolution is universally accepted in the scientific community. He cited a document by hundreds of scientists questioning some of Darwin's tenets.

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done. ~ Charles Darwin

When I was in Cambridge one of my supervisors often advised us to 'beware the sound of one hand clapping' which is a way of saying if there is an argument on one side, there is bound to be an argument on the other. And what I've found in studying the structure of the argument in the Origin of Species is that for every evidence based argument for one of Darwin's two key propositions there is an evidence based counter argument. ~ Stephen Meyer

Vangor:While I agree basic education should not be discouraging, there is a significant, symptomatic failure with the basic ways children are taught. Would you not agree? This, I believe, is zeph`'s main point.

Yeah I do. I don't think he made his point that broadly. I personally think teachers should be paid more and be easier to fire. No tenure. Ever.

I don't either doubt that what you've done is valuable, or would I criticize you for doing it. I hold teachers in extremely high regards.

The fact of the matter is, that what we do for kids currently is good. What you do for kids is great. What we both could do for kids is amazing. The point is not that I think there's a magic bullet philosophy cure for the problems inherent in our system - but there are clear ways in which we could produce better, smarter, more well-rounded students. Our system is not the optimal system in very obvious ways, and if that's the case then there seems to be room for improvement. The ways in which that improvement can be had, or what the nature of that improvement is, is a question of philosophy - the ways in which it will end up being done is a matter of teaching. Both of those things need to happen better if we're going to see any kind of positive change taking place - you sound like you're doing/have done your best, but I'd ask that you give the people who make it their business to wonder about the ways in which things could be better a chance to do so.

I am, like every other person, a product of a series of lucky occurrences from my birth to this day. Genetics, partly, but largely lucky circumstances. It was luck that I discovered philosophy - complete luck that I'm the person I am today rather than another (likely less clever person) person that I easily could have been had one decision been made differently. In the same way are your students a product of a series of lucky (or unlucky) circumstances that have characterizes their lives. They grow up poor, to parents that don't care as much as they could, and they develop a certain set of values and beliefs - values and beliefs that make education difficult. Values and beliefs that in, a very real psychological way, limit the things that these students can and will learn. Genetics only account for so much of any given person's potential, the rest is determined by the way in which their environment has taught them to think about the world.

You teach students to read, write, and do science - I worry about the causes behind the inability to do those things, and the ways to, as much as possible, negate those causes. One day we'll stumble on the secret of unleashing the potential that many students go through life never realizing they have, and you'll get to give that gift to them. Seems like a fair trade, no?

I'm sure you did VERY well in teaching kids how to read...You know how many teachers had to teach a kid something basic? ALL OF THEM! You are not a veteran of the imaginary education war in your head. You sound just like the sort of pseudo-philanthropist that not only brings down the progress of education, but all public works. You're not supposed to teach kids to prove a point. You're not supposed to enlighten youngsters with your vastly overinflated ego. You, sir, are an absolutely horrible human being.

Bevets:For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done. ~ Charles Darwin

Aren't you tired of posting the same old quotes that you've mined and that keep getting put back into context by others?

A conversation about the issue is one thing, and you're reputedly capable of having them, but that's not a conversation, this is going out and digging up the skeleton of your horse that your friends buried for you and hitching it to your wagon.

The Darwin quote, in full context:"My work is now (1859) nearly finished; but as it will take me many more years to complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged to publish this Abstract. I have more especially been induced to do this, as Mr. Wallace, who is now studying the natural history of the Malay Archipelago, has arrived at almost exactly the same general conclusions that I have on the origin of species. In 1858 he sent me a memoir on this subject, with a request that I would forward it to Sir Charles Lyell, who sent it to the Linnean Society, and it is published in the third volume of the Journal of that Society. Sir C. Lyell and Dr. Hooker, who both knew of my work-the latter having read my sketch of 1844-honoured me by thinking it advisable to publish, with Mr. Wallace's excellent memoir, some brief extracts from my manuscripts.

This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this.For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible."

He is, in fact, complaining that he was hurried to publish by the fear that he would die before he did so, and didn't have the time or the space to publish all of his data and sources. A few paragraphs later in the introduction (in the important one - the conclusion), he says this:

"Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained-namely, that each species has been independently created-is erroneous."

Quote mining in this fashion does you absolutely no favours. It's an extremely lazy form of argument, and an intellectually dishonest one at that.

The ARK washes up on the mountain and releases all of the animal pairs.

The predators are hungry. Chomp chomp chomp, no more tasty herbivores. The ones that escape, well the only plants that exist in the world now are trees and plants that survive being submerged in salt water for 40 days. The herbivores starve. All of the worms have drowned or been eaten by fish and birds after being under an planet-ocean for 40 days (oh and a hit, worms DO NOT LIKE SALT WATER).

What about seeds regrowing the plants drowned in ocean water? Well good luck with that. The ground is totally muddy and soaked with salty ocean brine which will not wash away in under 180 days even with very heavy rain. Hope the surviving animal populations love salt water to drink, because that's pretty much all there is to drink for hundreds of miles all around in a desert area (you remember, the Arab lands, the big-ass desert). Oh sure, there will be plenty of dead water-starved fish for the scavengers which survived in great numbers in the air or are amphibious or are swimming snakes. Great eating if you're a crow or a vulture or a swimming snake or a insect.

Did I overlook insects? Well look no further given a worldwide feast of rotting fish and predator carcasses to lay eggs in. Lots of insects have an underwater larval stage and they'd survive a mere 40 day submersion.

Thank you God for the worldwide flood that drowned 99.9% of your sucky creations aside from a small human family and the now mostly-extinct (given that once off the Ark, the animals have almost no suitable food to eat) paired-off sampling of the animal populations.

Let's look at this world. It is going to be chock full of rotting fish, dead-out-of-water sea life, parasites, flies, mosquitoes, swimming snakes, vultures, crows, hawks, and all in a sandy desert area that has been soaked to the permafrost depth with salt water throughout the entire world which leaves the entire surface soils sparkly white like the Salt Flats of Utah.

Did I mention that the representative sample of the human population deemed "Worthy of Saving" by God is pretty tiny? "Noah was instructed, by God, to take aboard the Ark his wife, his three sons and their wives, male and female pairs of all the "unclean" kinds of creatures, seven (or seven pairs) each of the "clean" kinds, and enough food and supplies for everyone (Gen. 6:18-7:3; 7:6, 11)." Tally that up and you get 8 humans (unless the kids had multiple wives). Obviously the wives were all multi-racial (Noah + wife were Arabic Jews, one son's wife would have to be Asian, another son's wife would be Hispanic, another son's wife would be Umber-skinned, another would be... oops ran out of women! Golly how'd that happen? Maybe there was a European pale-skinned woman there and the "Sin of Ham" made all of the Umber-skinned chicks as the Bible claims?)

See how simple it all is?

Good thing Noah's family endured the daily mile-high tidal waves with an ocean-covered world allowing an orbiting moon to generate a continual tidal wash (take a cup of water, move the cup in circles to watch the water swirl up the sides of the glass, now imagine a never-ending tidal wash with nothing to slow it down over a globe to finish the thought).

// Why ever could we doubt the claims of the Intelligent Design crowds?

UltimaCS:I'm sure you did VERY well in teaching kids how to read...You know how many teachers had to teach a kid something basic? ALL OF THEM! You are not a veteran of the imaginary education war in your head. You sound just like the sort of pseudo-philanthropist that not only brings down the progress of education, but all public works. You're not supposed to teach kids to prove a point. You're not supposed to enlighten youngsters with your vastly overinflated ego. You, sir, are an absolutely horrible human being.

And you don't know me. I didn't teach regular kids to read. I taught dyslexics who were way behind grade level. I type fast and don't care except what spell check catches.

Ever taught? Get after it and let me know how you do. Better yet, go teach at my friends school. He heard a ruckus outside his class and went to investigate. There was a student on the ground dead with a knife sticking out of her head, her blood pooling around her lifeless body. Teach the kids of that class some advanced college theory. Good luck with that. Go teach that class of forty traumatized kids half of which have parents that don't speak English.

Your a farking idiot on a message board who doesn't know shiat about what I'm talking about except on a purely theoretical level. Nothing more, nothing less.

Pharque-it:Phone_Answering_Monkey: "He also charged that evolution advocates have a history of falsifying evidence and drawing erroneous conclusions to support their position. "

Aren't they great liars those creationist supporters?

I don't know if they're liars, just a little deluded and intellectually lazy. How can he make a statement like that without noticing how it could be so easily used to assail his own position? I mean...the RELIGIOUS community never does things like that? Get this in politics too.

zeph`:I don't either doubt that what you've done is valuable, or would I criticize you for doing it. I hold teachers in extremely high regards.

The fact of the matter is, that what we do for kids currently is good. What you do for kids is great. What we both could do for kids is amazing. The point is not that I think there's a magic bullet philosophy cure for the problems inherent in our system - but there are clear ways in which we could produce better, smarter, more well-rounded students. Our system is not the optimal system in very obvious ways, and if that's the case then there seems to be room for improvement. The ways in which that improvement can be had, or what the nature of that improvement is, is a question of philosophy - the ways in which it will end up being done is a matter of teaching. Both of those things need to happen better if we're going to see any kind of positive change taking place - you sound like you're doing/have done your best, but I'd ask that you give the people who make it their business to wonder about the ways in which things could be better a chance to do so.

I am, like every other person, a product of a series of lucky occurrences from my birth to this day. Genetics, partly, but largely lucky circumstances. It was luck that I discovered philosophy - complete luck that I'm the person I am today rather than another (likely less clever person) person that I easily could have been had one decision been made differently. In the same way are your students a product of a series of lucky (or unlucky) circumstances that have characterizes their lives. They grow up poor, to parents that don't care as much as they could, and they develop a certain set of values and beliefs - values and beliefs that make education difficult. Values and beliefs that in, a very real psychological way, limit the things that these students can and will learn. Genetics only account for so much of any given person's potential, the rest is determined by the way in which their environment has taught them to think about the world.

You teach students to read, write, and do science - I worry about the causes behind the inability to do those things, and the ways to, as much as possible, negate those causes. One day we'll stumble on the secret of unleashing the potential that many students go through life never realizing they have, and you'll get to give that gift to them. Seems like a fair trade, no?

Agreed. Sorry I went off on you. You didn't deserve a lot of what I said. I'm passionate about this stuff.

I think that some triage is also in order. I think that you save the one's you can and intervene early in all future generations. If we can get parents to quit beating their kids, criticizing them too much, and make sure they hear a few million words by age four, a lot of this other stuff that you want is possible.

If we don't, we are paying teachers nearly nothing to babysit people that will be lucky to stay out of jail and no education program can fix it.

bartink, you manage to make yourself sound more like an overinflated war veteran every time you speak. But you're not; you're a farking teacher. I'm trying my best not to belittle your occupation or accomplishments, but when you try to graphically brag about a tragic scene that your friend came across at school, that's drawing the line pretty far out there. I'm sure you feel entitled toward having a higher opinion than everyone in this board because you're apparently the only teacher on this board AND the only person who has ever had to deal with the education system. I'm sorry for the great weight you carry, and I still hope that you continue educating kids to the best of your ability even when it's only to shine your own pole, but grow the fark up.

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done. ~ Charles Darwin

When I was in Cambridge one of my supervisors often advised us to 'beware the sound of one hand clapping' which is a way of saying if there is an argument on one side, there is bound to be an argument on the other. And what I've found in studying the structure of the argument in the Origin of Species is that for every evidence based argument for one of Darwin's two key propositions there is an evidence based counter argument. ~ Stephen Meyer

UltimaCS:bartink, you manage to make yourself sound more like an overinflated war veteran every time you speak. But you're not; you're a farking teacher. I'm trying my best not to belittle your occupation or accomplishments, but when you try to graphically brag about a tragic scene that your friend came across at school, that's drawing the line pretty far out there. I'm sure you feel entitled toward having a higher opinion than everyone in this board because you're apparently the only teacher on this board AND the only person who has ever had to deal with the education system. I'm sorry for the great weight you carry, and I still hope that you continue educating kids to the best of your ability even when it's only to shine your own pole, but grow the fark up.

I don't really care what you think. You don't know me. I wasn't talking to you. But you say I'm a horrible person who only does that to "shine my own pole". How would you know that exactly?